Case Law Details
Kotak Mahindra Bank Pvt. Limited Vs Ambuj A. Kasliwal & Ors (Supreme Court)
The extracted portion indicates that the High Court has proceeded at a tangent while adverting to the aspect of recovery made towards the loan amount from the land acquisition compensation payable to respondent No.3. The conclusion appears to be that the receipt of the compensation amount even though was before passing of the decree, would wipe out the decretal amount of Rs. 145 Crores with interest at 9% per annum, though it has not been expressly stated so. Per contra, the DRAT by its order dated 27.02.20 19 while directing the predeposit of fifty per cent of the amount had taken note of the fact that if the decretal amount as ordered by the DRT is taken into consideration and the amount received by the Bank towards the compensation amount is credited, the balance of the decretal amount payable by respondents No.1 to 3 would work out to Rs.68, 18,92,841/ (Rupees Sixty Eight Crores Eighteen Lakhs Ninety Two Thousand and Eight Hundred Forty One). It is in that view, the DRAT has ordered predeposit of fifty per cent of the said amount which still remains to be a debt due. On that aspect, though the ultimate correctness of the actual amount due is a matter for calculation to be made in the execution proceedings, for the present, for the purpose of predeposit if the decree/recovery certificate issued by the DRT is taken into consideration the position is clear that even if the amount of compensation is appropriated, either before or after the decree, there would still be outstanding amount payable which would be the subject matter of the appeal in DRAT, apart from the fact that the appellant Bank in their appeal are claiming the entire amount which has fallen due since the terms of settlement was not adhered to.
Thus, when prima facie it was taken note by the DRAT that further amount was due and the predeposit was ordered, without finding fault with such conclusion the High Court was not justified in setting aside the orders passed by the DRAT. As noted from the extracted portion of the order passed by the High Court, all that the High Court has concluded is that the benefit of the receipt of Rs. 152,81,07, 159/(Rupees One Hundred Fifty Two Crores Eighty One Lakhs Seven Thousand and One Hundred Fifty Nine) as against the decretal amount cannot be denied though it was received before passing of the final judgment. Such conclusion in any event could not have tilted the balance in favour of the respondents No.1 and 2 to waive the entire pre deposit, unless the High Court had rendered a categorical finding that the entire decretal amount stands satisfied from such receipt and there was no debt due which in any event was beyond the scope of consideration in a petition of the present nature. On the other hand, as stated, the DRAT having taken note of the decretal amount, the receipt of the amount credited as compensation and, having further noted the debt is still due, has directed the predeposit limited to that extent.
Therefore, in the facts and circumstances arising herein, when further amount is due and payable in discharge of the decree/recovery certificate issued by the DRT in favour of the appellant/Bank, the High Court does not have the power to waive the predeposit in its entirety, nor can it exercise discretion which is against the mandatory requirement of the statutory provision as contained in Section 21, which is extracted above. In all cases fifty per cent of the decretal amount i.e. the debt due is to be deposited before the DRAT as a mandatory requirement, but in appropriate cases for reasons to be recorded the deposit of at least twenty five per cent of the debt due would be permissible, but not entire waiver. Therefore, any waiver of predeposit to the entire extent would be against the statutory provisions and, therefore, not sustainable in law.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
